Illustrating the burden of proof - pay me!

[Belacqua]

a complex/multi-faceted all-powerful being... that is far more complicated than that which it was invoked to explain

Just because I have to maintain my reputation as someone who's picky about details....

All the theology we've been talking about here -- the Ontological Argument, the 5 Ways, etc. -- posit a God who is absolutely simple, with no parts, divisions, or complications. 

Their argument is that to explain the (apparent) complexity of the world requires an absolutely non-complex ground.

(This changed with Jacob Boehme, so there are people after him who don't hold to Divine Simplicity: Blake, Schelling, Hegel, etc. But they're a different kettle of fish.)

---

Hello everyone, sorry I've been away. I hope all of you are doing well. And happy belated New Year lol.

1. The first question to ask is what kinds of discussions merit the burden of proof? And, it seems to me, only those in which an accusation is being made. The burden of proof derives it's utility solely from positioning the accused in such away that they are protected against doubt and other incriminations.

2. Why is the burden of proof useless in the absence of an accusation? First, because there is no need to protect yourself against the free exchange of ideas. And second, because proof is open to interpretation. It always points in multiple directions beyond the single thing you want it to prove. (Hence why scientists seek to falsify rather than prove propositions.)

3. Lastly, people think they are persuaded by evidence but they are persuaded by arguments. Arguments are the best, and perhaps only, way to arrive at any conclusion. Therefore, instead of asking for evidence ask for the arguments. (Note that proof itself is an argument; hence why it's possible to convict an innocent person and acquit a guilty one.)

Nice to see you! I hope you and yours are doing well.